(10-05-2016 06:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote: I thought you were going to offer a competing interpretation of the parable by appealing to the historical setting? I guess not.

I was, But then you said you knew the historical context. I disagree.

I have also quoted this twice over the past two days.

From a Roman emperor you never read.

Now since I intend to treat of all their first dogmas, as they call them, I wish to say in the first place that if my readers desire to try to refute me they must proceed as if they were in a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is, bring counter-charges until they have defended their own views. For thus it will be better and clearer if, when they wish to censure any views of mine, they undertake that as a separate task, but when they are defending themselves against my censure, they bring no counter-charges.

I believe the forum at large is perfectly aware of my ancient Roman obsession. Both Western and Eastern. From Polybius to Psellos and beyond. I even read the ancient xians who predate Christ. So let's hear your side. See how accurate you are.

I am very interested.

A list of ancient Roman authors to begin. Followed by details of how workers were viewed in this period.

BTW. I will know if you Wiki it.

I cannot be fooled on this subject.

So, let's see it. What have you got?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.

(10-05-2016 06:35 AM)Banjo Wrote: I was, But then you said you knew the historical context. I disagree.

I'm familiar with the historical context, but I don't see how the historical context offers an alternative interpretation of the parable. Even now, you haven't particularly offered an alternative meaning to the parable itself. It's the question of how the historical context, influences the literary meaning of the parable. You'd have to start by offering an alternative interpretation of the parable first, that you feel is better supported than the common interpretation.

While the parables uses laborers in a vineyard, it's not really about labor, or even employee boss relationship, or even earthly matters in this regard, but about Jesus continuous themes used to illustrate the Kingdom of God. Just like the tale of the three little pigs, is not about the nature or relationship of pigs and wolves, or masonry.

It's not really even a historical argument that we're having, but a literary one. History can only be used in support of a better literary interpretation here, but that's about it.

Quote:From a Roman emperor you never read.

Yes, I'm not too sure who you quoted. I would have to google it.
I won't argue whether I know more about the overall history at the time than you, I'll just say that I'm not entirely ignorant of it, but the discussion is about the interpretation of the parable, more of a test of literary skills, than historical knowledge. History doesn't decide the meaning of the parable, it can only inform it.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

The purpose of a parable is to convey a lesson in the same way a fable does, which is why taking it at face value and reading it literally only means that you're missing the entire point of the parable. The commonly accepted lesson that is taught by this one in particular is that God rewards people with eternal life regardless of how long they have been Christian. The point is that even deathbed converts will go to Heaven even though it might seem unfair to those who have served God all their life.

Nah, I'll declare you the de facto winner, if it's a question of who has more extensive overall knowledge of early Roman history, I'd probably lose in a game of jeopardy with you, if that was the topic.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

Nah, I'll declare you the de facto winner, if it's a question of who has more extensive overall knowledge of early Roman history, I'd probably lose in a game of jeopardy with you, if that was the topic.

Okay mate.

When my brain is 100%, I will write a post about it.

Thanks for being a good sport.

I am growing to like you. You are sincere. I respect that.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.

(10-05-2016 07:02 AM)Vosur Wrote: The purpose of a parable is to convey a lesson in the same way a fable does, which is why taking it at face value and reading it literally only means that you're missing the entire point of the parable. The commonly accepted lesson that is taught by this one in particular is that God rewards people with eternal life regardless of how long they have been Christian. The point is that even deathbed converts will go to Heaven even though it might seem unfair to those who have served God all their life.

There's no lesson to be learned here for non-believers.

I agree with this while also having a different view of the attitudes and the times.

Roman society had very specific views of workers and slaves.

Sadly I am currently in no condition to extemporise on this subject.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.

(10-05-2016 07:02 AM)Vosur Wrote: The purpose of a parable is to convey a lesson in the same way a fable does, which is why taking it at face value and reading it literally only means that you're missing the entire point of the parable. The commonly accepted lesson that is taught by this one in particular is that God rewards people with eternal life regardless of how long they have been Christian. The point is that even deathbed converts will go to Heaven even though it might seem unfair to those who have served God all their life.

There's no lesson to be learned here for non-believers.

Thank you Vosur. This is actually really helpful to me, even if it wasn't exactly what I was thinking about when I initially posted here. It also would mean that my high school teacher, even though we were both believers, was also misusing this parable by trying to apply it to my situation.
My thoughts as to the morality of any other message that can be taken from this story still remain, but at least now I can be more clear in separating those thoughts from this source.